Friday, February 3, 2012

Seavey on Heroes, O’Connor on Cleveland, Long on Libertarians

(And I should go see Chronicle to determine the political implications of teenage telekinesis.Rumor has it that director may do a reboot Fantastic Four film, which sounds like a good match – but not with the writer of Green Lantern, which was terrible and should leave fanboys everywhere with permanent doubts about producer Geoff Johns, even if he is a fellow geek.)

•On an arguably more important topic – the politics of Grover Cleveland – another rare free-market Democrat, congressional candidate Dan O’Connor, opines in the Brooklyn Eagle.

•And on another left-leaning yet free-market note, this talk by Roderick Long, affiliated with the Mises Institute, explains Murray Rothbard’s reasons for thinking (in the 60s, though certainly not the late 80s) that libertarianism – and indeed capitalism itself – fit better on the left than the right, if you’re interested (though I admit it’s 53 min. long).

I remain suspicious of Long’s embrace of feminism (more on that evergreen topic in a few days), but at the same time I have to admit I have more sympathy for his view that libertarians can work with the far left than I do for the seemingly more-moderate “liberaltarian” view that we naturally fit with welfare-minded mainstream liberals (left and liberal being two different things, at least in some contexts).

Liberte, egalite, et fraternite – libertarian, leftist, and conservative/communitarian virtues, respectively – are in some sense better understood by kooky nutjobs like the Occupy people, who are at least willing to argue about their implications, than by the average person whose jaw drops with horror if you suggest Medicare cuts.

The bland center is where most of the problems are, in fact, which is why this blog – and the onstage events it portends – will have to grapple with stranger and fringier views (not that I’m blaming anyone at those events for the views expressed here, I should say in advance).